SD Software?

I am a retired EE and a long time ham. Acouple years ago I took an interest in SD Radio but all the FREEBIE software I could find at the time would not run on

Message 1 of 19
, Mar 31 10:28 AM

0 Attachment

I am a retired EE and a long time ham.

Acouple years ago I took an interest in SD Radio but all the FREEBIE
software I could find at the time would not run on W98. I refuse to
update Windows again.

Recently a friend put me onto "Rocky" and I instlled it and it seems to
run. I won't know until I get a receiver working. But with the bands
they way they are that may be several months.

I recenentl downloaded and installed "powerSDR" and all the support
junk it needs. Whe I try and start it, it hangs.

What software options are available to use with a receiver like the
Softrock40?

Bob Macklin
K5MYJ
Seattle, Wa.

k5nwa

... If you are going to insist that you will not change from Win98 then your choices are going to be slim or none. Win 98 does not have the software mechanisms

Message 2 of 19
, Mar 31 11:05 AM

0 Attachment

At 12:28 PM 3/31/2008, you wrote:

>Acouple years ago I took an interest in SD Radio but all the FREEBIE
>software I could find at the time would not run on W98. I refuse to
>update Windows again.
>
>What software options are available to use with a receiver like the
>Softrock40?
>
>Bob Macklin
>K5MYJ
>Seattle, Wa.

If you are going to insist that you will not change from Win98 then
your choices are going to be slim or none. Win 98 does not have the
software mechanisms that make SDR software run well I don't know if
any of the major players support that OS anymore, less face it that
OS is 10 years old and that is forever in the computer business.

I can sympathize with you in not wanting to change, Win98 is very
lean and runs real well on machines that are not up to current state
but programmers won't go out of their way to support it.

I'm not sure but you may want to check out M0KGK's software, it's
written in Delphi so it could work on Win98, it also uses ASIO4ALL
drivers and they work on Win98.

Sheesh...what a neanderthalithic outlook... maybe you d be interested in a Commodore 64...or perhaps an abacus.. Seriously...the SoftRocks are some of the most

Message 3 of 19
, Mar 31 11:31 AM

0 Attachment

Sheesh...what a neanderthalithic outlook...
maybe you'd be interested in a Commodore 64...or perhaps an abacus..

Seriously...the SoftRocks are some of the most well received (no pun
intended) kits to come down the amateur radio pike in a long time.
Win2k or better yet XP isn't hard to come by. Yes, you'll need some
decent amount of RAM and maybe want 100 GB hard disk, but that's not
much these days, especially in the light of the capabilities of the SR kits.

Give it a try...you'll be well pleased or at the least...in the
minority of the SoftRock crowd.

At 12:28 PM 3/31/2008, you wrote:

>I am a retired EE and a long time ham.
>
>Acouple years ago I took an interest in SD Radio but all the FREEBIE
>software I could find at the time would not run on W98. I refuse to
>update Windows again.
>
>Recently a friend put me onto "Rocky" and I instlled it and it seems
>to run. I won't know until I get a receiver working. But with the
>bands they way they are that may be several months.
>
>I recenentl downloaded and installed "powerSDR" and all the support
>junk it needs. Whe I try and start it, it hangs.
>
>What software options are available to use with a receiver like the
>Softrock40?
>
>Bob Macklin
>K5MYJ
>Seattle, Wa.
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Hi I am a little amused, that it seems to be the case that one should have to spend $300 to run a $15 radio. I can appreciate that developers have enough

Message 4 of 19
, Mar 31 4:41 PM

0 Attachment

Hi I am a little amused, that it seems to be the case that one should have
to spend $300 to run a $15 radio. I can appreciate that developers have
enough hastle because the latest OS is not downwards compatible.....but many
of us refuse to buy even more bug-ridden software, when the one we have does
the vast majority of our tasks. So what are the options for Linux ?? my next
move because I want to run a computer not "media centre", and I am aware
that some new apps and hw is not going to work on old systems....the rip-off
conspiracy.

BTW I still have machines, doing what they were designed for, that are over
15 years old now....working reliably running DOS 4.1....because the software
apps wont run on a more modern machine.......and I dont get "blue screens"
on them!

Alan G3NYK

Don Parks

Alan, With your DOS machines download the FREE e-book on www.farviewu.biz. It was written in 1991 and runs in a DOS box. Don K4IJV

Message 5 of 19
, Mar 31 4:48 PM

0 Attachment

Alan,

With your DOS machines download the FREE e-book on www.farviewu.biz.
It was written in 1991 and runs in a DOS box.

Don
K4IJV

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Alan Melia <Alan.Melia@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi I am a little amused, that it seems to be the case that one should have
> to spend $300 to run a $15 radio. I can appreciate that developers have
> enough hastle because the latest OS is not downwards compatible.....but
> many
> of us refuse to buy even more bug-ridden software, when the one we have
> does
> the vast majority of our tasks. So what are the options for Linux ?? my
> next
> move because I want to run a computer not "media centre", and I am aware
> that some new apps and hw is not going to work on old systems....the
> rip-off
> conspiracy.
>
> BTW I still have machines, doing what they were designed for, that are over
> 15 years old now....working reliably running DOS 4.1....because the
> software
> apps wont run on a more modern machine.......and I dont get "blue screens"
> on them!
>
> Alan G3NYK
>
>

Terry

... should have ... have ... compatible.....but many ... have does ... Linux ?? my next ... aware ... systems....the rip-off ... are over ... software ...

> conspiracy.
>
> BTW I still have machines, doing what they were designed for, that

are over

> 15 years old now....working reliably running DOS 4.1....because the

software

> apps wont run on a more modern machine.......and I dont get "blue

screens"

> on them!
>
> Alan G3NYK
>

Regarding SDR on older computers: try simultaneously running a
graphical user interface, and the DSP code necessary to decode and
display CW or SSB on a 386 or 486. Without a dedicated DSP chip, you
are in for a long wait. Over ten years ago, I wrote DOS-based code
(in Turbo-C) that displayed an audio spectrum analyzer in a DOS-based
VGA graphics display. All the DSP was done in either a homebrew
Motorola 56000 board, or an EVM, with DMA data transfers over the old
PC bus (homebrew), or fast serial port(EVM).

I don't want to do that again. But, if you are staying DOS or Win-
98, kiss the PC doing DSP goodbye. I still have three Moto 56000 EVM
boards that I'd be glad to sell.

Regarding Linux: There is some movement afoot there with SDR. There
are a few programs that will work. Again, you must do a hardware
upgrade to get the processing necessary to do DSP and on-screen
graphics.

I also have a couple 486 computers with Win98, and Win95, and DOS.
Just in case I ever want to run my 56000 audio spec analyzer.

But, I also have a working IBM 5-slot computer, and a spare.

And, I have a working IMSAI CP/M system with Heath H19 terminal, and
8-inch drives. I boot CP/M and run Wordstar every once in a while.
How about a nice game of chess? Or the CP/M user-group Adventure?

I also have two Altair 8800s, and an Altair turnkey (no front panel),
plus a bunch of S100 boards. No power to them in about three years.

I don't expect these computers to run SDR software either.

And, I can still erase and burn 1702A to 2764 EPROMS. Go figure.

Don't get me started with software. From CP/M, to DOS 1.x to 4.x, to
the original flight simulator. I even had the paper tapes for Altair
4k and 8k Basic. Anybody remember Lattice C, or Run-C? Or the CP/M
Pascal?

But native SDR on a 4MHz Z80? Probably as likely as on a 266MHz 486.

Terry

N0FY

Hi Terry, Thanks for putting this in the proper perspective - I agree on everything you have said except for one thing. I have been watching LINUX try to grow

Message 7 of 19
, Mar 31 9:22 PM

0 Attachment

Hi Terry,

Thanks for putting this in the proper perspective - I agree
on everything you have said except for one thing. I have been watching
LINUX try to grow to a full blown OS for many years and while it is superior
for specific characteristics I don't think I will hold my breath until it
matures. I have my doubts that it ever will - it seems to lack the
management drive that it takes to make a single entity that does it all.
Right or Wrong if it can't at least do what MS OSs (including device
support) do then it will never be a big box competitor.

I hope I am wrong about LINUX because I truly believe it
could be king of the hill with the right direction, management and stability,
but that has yet to happen.

--- In softrock40@yahoogro ups.com,
"Alan Melia" <Alan.Melia@ ...> wrote:>> Hi I am a
little amused, that it seems to be the case that one should have>
to spend $300 to run a $15 radio. I can appreciate that developers
have> enough hastle because the latest OS is not downwards
compatible.. ...but many> of us refuse to buy even more
bug-ridden software, when the one we have does> the vast majority
of our tasks. So what are the options for Linux ?? my next> move
because I want to run a computer not "media centre", and I am
aware> that some new apps and hw is not going to work on old
systems....the rip-off> conspiracy.> > BTW I still
have machines, doing what they were designed for, that are over> 15
years old now....working reliably running DOS 4.1....because the
software> apps wont run on a more modern machine..... ..and I
dont get "blue screens"> on them!> > Alan
G3NYK>

Regarding SDR on older computers: try simultaneously
running a graphical user interface, and the DSP code necessary to decode
and display CW or SSB on a 386 or 486. Without a dedicated DSP chip, you
are in for a long wait. Over ten years ago, I wrote DOS-based code (in
Turbo-C) that displayed an audio spectrum analyzer in a DOS-based VGA
graphics display. All the DSP was done in either a homebrew Motorola 56000
board, or an EVM, with DMA data transfers over the old PC bus (homebrew),
or fast serial port(EVM).

I don't want to do that again. But, if you
are staying DOS or Win-98, kiss the PC doing DSP goodbye. I still have
three Moto 56000 EVM boards that I'd be glad to sell.

Regarding
Linux: There is some movement afoot there with SDR. There are a few
programs that will work. Again, you must do a hardware upgrade to get the
processing necessary to do DSP and on-screen graphics.

I also have
a couple 486 computers with Win98, and Win95, and DOS. Just in case I ever
want to run my 56000 audio spec analyzer.

But, I also have a working
IBM 5-slot computer, and a spare.

And, I have a working IMSAI CP/M
system with Heath H19 terminal, and 8-inch drives. I boot CP/M and run
Wordstar every once in a while. How about a nice game of chess? Or the
CP/M user-group Adventure?

I also have two Altair 8800s, and an Altair
turnkey (no front panel), plus a bunch of S100 boards. No power to them in
about three years.

I don't expect these computers to run SDR software
either.

And, I can still erase and burn 1702A to 2764 EPROMS. Go
figure.

Don't get me started with software. From CP/M, to DOS 1.x to
4.x, to the original flight simulator. I even had the paper tapes for
Altair 4k and 8k Basic. Anybody remember Lattice C, or Run-C? Or the CP/M
Pascal?

But native SDR on a 4MHz Z80? Probably as likely as on a
266MHz
486.

Terry

Terry

... everything ... to grow ... specific ... matures. I ... drive ... Wrong if ... it will ... king of ... that has ... Thanks Ray. I hope I didn t

>
> Hi Terry,
>
> Thanks for putting this in the proper perspective - I agree on

everything

> you have said except for one thing. I have been watching LINUX try

to grow

> to a full blown OS for many years and while it is superior for

specific

> characteristics I don't think I will hold my breath until it

matures. I

> have my doubts that it ever will - it seems to lack the management

drive

> that it takes to make a single entity that does it all. Right or

Wrong if

> it can't at least do what MS OSs (including device support) do then

it will

> never be a big box competitor.
>
> I hope I am wrong about LINUX because I truly believe it could be

king of

> the hill with the right direction, management and stability, but

that has

> yet to happen.
>
> 73, Ray, N0FY
>
>
>

<snip>

Thanks Ray. I hope I didn't upset anyone - that wasn't the intent.
You read it just right - perspective is what I was aiming at.

Plus, I heard from a friend that I lost contact with a while back.
We used to packet together many years ago. So, that was great!

I agree with you about Linux to some degree. I think we may be
forced into Linux eventually. It's also getting harder to do stuff
in the MS world. Which to chose: an OS that doesn't support every
piece of hardware (or supports it badly), or an OS that won't allow
access to your data (because it might be a pirated movie)?

I wrote more, but cut it as it was too boring.

Thanks.
Terry

Bill Heverly

Ray, As an old Burroughs guy, you probably don t want to hear this but Linux has some support from a big gun. IBM offers Linux on their mainframe systems. Even

Message 9 of 19
, Apr 1, 2008

0 Attachment

Ray,

As an old
Burroughs guy, you probably don't want to hear this but Linux has some support
from a big gun. IBM offers Linux on their mainframe systems. Even though I too
am an old Burroughs guy, I think that is pretty big gun
support.

Thanks for putting this in the proper perspective - I
agree on everything you have said except for one thing. I have been
watching LINUX try to grow to a full blown OS for many years and while it is
superior for specific characteristics I don't think I will hold my breath
until it matures. I have my doubts that it ever will - it seems to lack
the management drive that it takes to make a single entity that does it
all. Right or Wrong if it can't at least do what MS OSs (including
device support) do then it will never be a big box competitor.

I hope I am wrong about LINUX because I truly believe it
could be king of the hill with the right direction, management and stability,
but that has yet to happen.

--- In softrock40@yahoogro ups.com,
"Alan Melia" <Alan.Melia@ ...> wrote:>> Hi I am
a little amused, that it seems to be the case that one should
have> to spend $300 to run a $15 radio. I can appreciate that
developers have> enough hastle because the latest OS is not
downwards compatible.. ...but many> of us refuse to buy even
more bug-ridden software, when the one we have does> the vast
majority of our tasks. So what are the options for Linux ?? my
next> move because I want to run a computer not "media centre", and I
am aware> that some new apps and hw is not going to work on old
systems....the rip-off> conspiracy.> > BTW I still
have machines, doing what they were designed for, that are over>
15 years old now....working reliably running DOS 4.1....because the
software> apps wont run on a more modern machine..... ..and I
dont get "blue screens"> on them!> > Alan
G3NYK>

Regarding SDR on older computers: try simultaneously
running a graphical user interface, and the DSP code necessary to decode
and display CW or SSB on a 386 or 486. Without a dedicated DSP chip, you
are in for a long wait. Over ten years ago, I wrote DOS-based code
(in Turbo-C) that displayed an audio spectrum analyzer in a DOS-based
VGA graphics display. All the DSP was done in either a homebrew
Motorola 56000 board, or an EVM, with DMA data transfers over the old
PC bus (homebrew), or fast serial port(EVM).

I don't want to do
that again. But, if you are staying DOS or Win-98, kiss the PC doing DSP
goodbye. I still have three Moto 56000 EVM boards that I'd be glad to
sell.

Regarding Linux: There is some movement afoot there with SDR.
There are a few programs that will work. Again, you must do a hardware
upgrade to get the processing necessary to do DSP and on-screen
graphics.

I also have a couple 486 computers with Win98, and
Win95, and DOS. Just in case I ever want to run my 56000 audio spec
analyzer.

But, I also have a working IBM 5-slot computer, and a
spare.

And, I have a working IMSAI CP/M system with Heath H19
terminal, and 8-inch drives. I boot CP/M and run Wordstar every once in
a while. How about a nice game of chess? Or the CP/M user-group
Adventure?

I also have two Altair 8800s, and an Altair turnkey (no
front panel), plus a bunch of S100 boards. No power to them in about
three years.

I don't expect these computers to run SDR software
either.

And, I can still erase and burn 1702A to 2764 EPROMS. Go
figure.

Don't get me started with software. From CP/M, to DOS 1.x to
4.x, to the original flight simulator. I even had the paper tapes for
Altair 4k and 8k Basic. Anybody remember Lattice C, or Run-C? Or the
CP/M Pascal?

But native SDR on a 4MHz Z80? Probably as likely as
on a 266MHz
486.

Terry

n3hkn

Linux as a matured OS conjures up visions of just another bloated multi-media system. I really would never want it to mature . Rather it should offer

Message 10 of 19
, Apr 1, 2008

0 Attachment

Linux as a "matured" OS conjures up visions of just another bloated multi-media system. I really would never want it to "mature". Rather it should offer elements that the Linux audience want. Once any software attempts to "appeal" (attract users/customers) it begins to run a muck and we have Windows or MAC OS. All things to all people is precisely what Linux should never become.

Dick N3HKN

--- In softrock40@yahoogroups.com, "N0FY" <N0FY@...> wrote:>> Hi Terry,> > Thanks for putting this in the proper perspective - I agree on everything> you have said except for one thing. I have been watching LINUX try to grow> to a full blown OS for many years and while it is superior for specific> characteristics I don't think I will hold my breath until it matures. I> have my doubts that it ever will - it seems to lack the management drive> that it takes to make a single entity that does it all. Right or Wrong if> it can't at least do what MS OSs (including device support) do then it will> never be a big box competitor. > > I hope I am wrong about LINUX because I truly believe it could be king of> the hill with the right direction, management and stability, but that has> yet to happen.> > 73, Ray, N0FY> > > > > _____ > > From: softrock40@yahoogroups.com [mailto:softrock40@yahoogroups.com] On> Behalf Of Terry> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 7:10 PM> To: softrock40@yahoogroups.com> Subject: [softrock40] Re: SD Software?> > > > --- In softrock40@yahoogro <mailto:softrock40%40yahoogroups.com> ups.com,> "Alan Melia" Alan.Melia@ > wrote:> >> > Hi I am a little amused, that it seems to be the case that one > should have> > to spend $300 to run a $15 radio. I can appreciate that developers > have> > enough hastle because the latest OS is not downwards > compatible.....but many> > of us refuse to buy even more bug-ridden software, when the one we > have does> > the vast majority of our tasks. So what are the options for > Linux ?? my next> > move because I want to run a computer not "media centre", and I am > aware> > that some new apps and hw is not going to work on old > systems....the rip-off> > conspiracy.> > > > BTW I still have machines, doing what they were designed for, that > are over> > 15 years old now....working reliably running DOS 4.1....because the > software> > apps wont run on a more modern machine.......and I dont get "blue > screens"> > on them!> > > > Alan G3NYK> >> > Regarding SDR on older computers: try simultaneously running a > graphical user interface, and the DSP code necessary to decode and > display CW or SSB on a 386 or 486. Without a dedicated DSP chip, you > are in for a long wait. Over ten years ago, I wrote DOS-based code > (in Turbo-C) that displayed an audio spectrum analyzer in a DOS-based > VGA graphics display. All the DSP was done in either a homebrew > Motorola 56000 board, or an EVM, with DMA data transfers over the old > PC bus (homebrew), or fast serial port(EVM).> > I don't want to do that again. But, if you are staying DOS or Win-> 98, kiss the PC doing DSP goodbye. I still have three Moto 56000 EVM > boards that I'd be glad to sell.> > Regarding Linux: There is some movement afoot there with SDR. There > are a few programs that will work. Again, you must do a hardware > upgrade to get the processing necessary to do DSP and on-screen > graphics.> > I also have a couple 486 computers with Win98, and Win95, and DOS. > Just in case I ever want to run my 56000 audio spec analyzer.> > But, I also have a working IBM 5-slot computer, and a spare.> > And, I have a working IMSAI CP/M system with Heath H19 terminal, and > 8-inch drives. I boot CP/M and run Wordstar every once in a while. > How about a nice game of chess? Or the CP/M user-group Adventure?> > I also have two Altair 8800s, and an Altair turnkey (no front panel), > plus a bunch of S100 boards. No power to them in about three years.> > I don't expect these computers to run SDR software either.> > And, I can still erase and burn 1702A to 2764 EPROMS. Go figure.> > Don't get me started with software. From CP/M, to DOS 1.x to 4.x, to > the original flight simulator. I even had the paper tapes for Altair > 4k and 8k Basic. Anybody remember Lattice C, or Run-C? Or the CP/M > Pascal?> > But native SDR on a 4MHz Z80? Probably as likely as on a 266MHz 486.> > Terry>

> To: softrock40@yahoogroups.com> From: k5nwa@...> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:05:55 -0500> Subject: Re: [softrock40] SD Software?> > At 12:28 PM 3/31/2008, you wrote:> > >Acouple years ago I took an interest in SD Radio but all the FREEBIE> >software I could find at the time would not run on W98. I refuse to> >update Windows again.> >> >What software options are available to use with a receiver like the> >Softrock40?> >> >Bob Macklin> >K5MYJ> >Seattle, Wa.> > If you are going to insist that you will not change from Win98 then > your choices are going to be slim or none. Win 98 does not have the > software mechanisms that make SDR software run well I don't know if > any of the major players support that OS anymore, less face it that > OS is 10 years old and that is forever in the computer business.> > I can sympathize with you in not wanting to change, Win98 is very > lean and runs real well on machines that are not up to current state > but programmers won't go out of their way to support it.> > I'm not sure but you may want to check out M0KGK's software, it's > written in Delphi so it could work on Win98, it also uses ASIO4ALL > drivers and they work on Win98.> > < http://www.m0kgk.co.uk/sdr/index.php >> > > > > Cecil> K5NWA> www.softrockradio.org www.qrpradio.com> > "Blessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light." > > > ------------------------------------> > Yahoo! Groups Links> > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/softrock40/> > <*> Your email settings:> Individual Email | Traditional> > <*> To change settings online go to:> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/softrock40/join> (Yahoo! ID required)> > <*> To change settings via email:> mailto:softrock40-digest@yahoogroups.com > mailto:softrock40-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com> > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:> softrock40-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>

Pack up or back up–use SkyDrive to transfer files or keep extra copies. Learn how.

Brian Lloyd

... It is interesting how people tend to get locked into a viewpoint and then never take a step back to ask, does this make sense? Right now people seem to

Message 12 of 19
, Apr 1, 2008

0 Attachment

On Apr 1, 2008, at 2:36 AM, Bill Heverly wrote:

>
> Ray,
>
> As an old Burroughs guy, you probably don't want to hear this but
> Linux has some support from a big gun. IBM offers Linux on their
> mainframe systems. Even though I too am an old Burroughs guy, I
> think that is pretty big gun support.

It is interesting how people tend to get locked into a viewpoint and
then never take a step back to ask, "does this make sense?"

Right now people seem to get into this MS/Linux (and sometimes MacOS)
debate without ever asking, "do any of these operating systems really
do a good job at what they are supposed to do?" Yes, we must move
forward with something because the goal is to write code that does
something useful and an OS does nothing useful (from the end-user
point of view). But it does make the programmer's job easier and,
hence, may mean that we get useful programs sooner with one or the
other.

(And then there is the reliability issue which is a whole other can-of-
worms.)

I don't know, I find MacOS to be easier to deal with (from a
programmers point of view -- there are some pretty decent APIs in
there) but Apple in its usual style, seems to be hell-bent on making
their OS as unusable as Microsoft's. They just haven't been at the
process quite long enough yet.

And then there is Linux with its abysmal integrated support for
sampled signal streams. (I was going to say "audio" but we know that
doesn't apply because it is really our IF, not AF, right?)

My take on it is that we really need to start with a clean slate but
we know that isn't going to happen.

... Hmm, that applies if you think of the OS as an end-user application. If you consider it to be a vehicle for supporting task loading, memory management,

Message 13 of 19
, Apr 1, 2008

0 Attachment

On Apr 1, 2008, at 3:55 AM, n3hkn wrote:

> Linux as a "matured" OS conjures up visions of just another bloated
> multi-media system. I really would never want it to "mature". Rather
> it should offer elements that the Linux audience want. Once any
> software attempts to "appeal" (attract users/customers) it begins to
> run a muck and we have Windows or MAC OS. All things to all people
> is precisely what Linux should never become.
>

Hmm, that applies if you think of the OS as an end-user application.
If you consider it to be a vehicle for supporting task loading, memory
management, inter-process communications, storage system, networking,
device independence, an API library, and a UI library, it doesn't seem
nearly has difficult. It also doesn't need to have a "major" release
every year either.

> A couple years ago I took an interest in SD Radio but all the FREEBIE
> software I could find at the time would not run on W98. I refuse to
> update Windows again.

There is a version of Winrad that is still compatible with Windows 98. It is V1.23
From that version on, I started using features of the operating system that were present only in XP an not in W98, but
I kept that version frozen and available to all those who still run W98. Of course it has less features than more recent
versions, but that is a price that must be payed in exchange for backwards compatibility.

Hmm, I don t want this to become another my OS can beat your OS hands down type of discussion. Just an opinion: Linux is a mature OS -- it s cleanly designed

Message 15 of 19
, Apr 1, 2008

0 Attachment

Hmm,

I don't want this to become another "my OS can beat your OS hands down"
type of discussion.

Just an opinion:
Linux is a mature OS -- it's cleanly designed (almost as clean as BSD)
and stable.
Whether Linux-based desktop systems (i.e. OS + lots of other software)
have reached
any kind of maturity is still open for discussion -- as a server system
it is doing a good job.

What is hurting the amateur (not only radio) communities most is that many
hardware manufacturers do not provide Linux drivers and do not publish
details
about their hardware which would allow third parties to create hardware
drivers
for Linux.

Professionally, I am using Linux (and UNIX systems) quite a lot. For
those of my hobbies which
depend on computers (astronomy and, of course, ham radio) I moved back from
Linux to windoze, because I got fed up with chasing up drivers or even
hacking existing
drivers to make them work with the kernel version du jour.

Just my EUR 0,02.

Cheers,
Marcus -- DL7GEM

Ray

Hi Bill, I agree that the big guns need and offer LINUX, Burroughs/UNISYS also offers it on the ES7000 and a few mainframes and it is a superior OS in the big

Message 16 of 19
, Apr 2, 2008

0 Attachment

Hi Bill,

I agree that the big guns need and offer
LINUX, Burroughs/UNISYS also offers it on the ES7000 and a few mainframes and
it is a superior OS in the big machine arena. I participated in
qualification testing of LINUX on the ES7000 and it was very easy to port onto
a 32 way Intel platform with a custom memory and I/O chip set. I didn’t
mean to give the impression that it was less of an OS, it is just that I don’t
think into will make it into the average household anytime soon.

As an old Burroughs guy, you probably
don't want to hear this but Linux has some support from a big gun. IBM offers
Linux on their mainframe systems. Even though I too am an old Burroughs guy, I
think that is pretty big gun support.

Thanks for putting this in the proper
perspective - I agree on everything you have said except for one thing. I
have been watching LINUX try to grow to a full blown OS for many years and
while it is superior for specific characteristics I don't think I will hold
my breath until it matures. I have my doubts that it ever will - it seems
to lack the management drive that it takes to make a single entity that does it
all. Right or Wrong if it can't at least do what MS OSs (including
device support) do then it will never be a big box competitor.

I hope I am wrong about LINUX because I
truly believe it could be king of the hill with the right direction, management
and stability, but that has yet to happen.

--- In softrock40@yahoogro ups.com,
"Alan Melia" <Alan.Melia@ ...>
wrote:
>
> Hi I am a little amused, that it seems to be the case that one
should have
> to spend $300 to run a $15 radio. I can appreciate that developers
have
> enough hastle because the latest OS is not downwards
compatible.. ...but many
> of us refuse to buy even more bug-ridden software, when the one we
have does
> the vast majority of our tasks. So what are the options for
Linux ?? my next
> move because I want to run a computer not "media centre", and I
am
aware
> that some new apps and hw is not going to work on old
systems....the rip-off
> conspiracy.
>
> BTW I still have machines, doing what they were designed for, that
are over
> 15 years old now....working reliably running DOS 4.1....because the
software
> apps wont run on a more modern machine..... ..and I dont get
"blue
screens"
> on them!
>
> Alan G3NYK
>

Regarding SDR on older computers: try simultaneously running a
graphical user interface, and the DSP code necessary to decode and
display CW or SSB on a 386 or 486. Without a dedicated DSP chip, you
are in for a long wait. Over ten years ago, I wrote DOS-based code
(in Turbo-C) that displayed an audio spectrum analyzer in a DOS-based
VGA graphics display. All the DSP was done in either a homebrew
Motorola 56000 board, or an EVM, with DMA data transfers over the old
PC bus (homebrew), or fast serial port(EVM).

I don't want to do that again. But, if you are staying DOS or Win-
98, kiss the PC doing DSP goodbye. I still have three Moto 56000 EVM
boards that I'd be glad to sell.

Regarding Linux: There is some movement afoot there with SDR. There
are a few programs that will work. Again, you must do a hardware
upgrade to get the processing necessary to do DSP and on-screen
graphics.

I also have a couple 486 computers with Win98, and Win95, and DOS.
Just in case I ever want to run my 56000 audio spec analyzer.

But, I also have a working IBM 5-slot computer, and a spare.

And, I have a working IMSAI CP/M system with Heath H19 terminal, and
8-inch drives. I boot CP/M and run Wordstar every once in a while.
How about a nice game of chess? Or the CP/M user-group Adventure?

I also have two Altair 8800s, and an Altair turnkey (no front panel),
plus a bunch of S100 boards. No power to them in about three years.

I don't expect these computers to run SDR software either.

And, I can still erase and burn 1702A to 2764 EPROMS. Go figure.

Don't get me started with software. From CP/M, to DOS 1.x to 4.x, to
the original flight simulator. I even had the paper tapes for Altair
4k and 8k Basic. Anybody remember Lattice C, or Run-C? Or the CP/M
Pascal?

But native SDR on a 4MHz Z80? Probably as likely as on a 266MHz 486.

Terry

Bill Heverly

Ray, I knew Burroughs offered Unix, but didn t know they also had a Linux offering. My Unix training was done at Penn State s Great Valley Campus at Valley

Message 17 of 19
, Apr 2, 2008

0 Attachment

Ray,

I knew
Burroughs offered Unix, but didn't know they also had a Linux offering. My Unix
training was done at Penn State's Great Valley Campus at Valley Forge, PA. One
of my instructors was a Unisys, actually Sperry, old timer who supported Unix on
their various systems.

I agree that the big
guns need and offer LINUX, Burroughs/UNISYS also offers it on the ES7000 and a
few mainframes and it is a superior OS in the big machine arena. I
participated in qualification testing of LINUX on the ES7000 and it was very
easy to port onto a 32 way Intel platform with a custom memory and I/O chip
set. I didn’t mean to give the impression that it was less of an OS, it
is just that I don’t think into will make it into the average household
anytime soon.

As an old Burroughs
guy, you probably don't want to hear this but Linux has some support from a
big gun. IBM offers Linux on their mainframe systems. Even though I too am an
old Burroughs guy, I think that is pretty big gun
support.

Thanks for putting
this in the proper perspective - I agree on everything you have said except
for one thing. I have been watching LINUX try to grow to a full blown
OS for many years and while it is superior for specific characteristics
I don't think I will hold my breath until it matures. I have my doubts
that it ever will - it seems to lack the management drive that it takes to
make a single entity that does it all. Right or Wrong if it can't
at least do what MS OSs (including device support) do then it will never be
a big box competitor.

I hope I am wrong
about LINUX because I truly believe it could be king of the hill with the
right direction, management and stability, but that has yet to
happen.

---
In softrock40@yahoogro ups.com,
"Alan Melia" <Alan.Melia@ ...> wrote:>> Hi I
am a little amused, that it seems to be the case that one should
have> to spend $300 to run a $15 radio. I can appreciate that
developers have> enough hastle because the latest OS is not
downwards compatible.. ...but many> of us refuse to buy
even more bug-ridden software, when the one we have does> the
vast majority of our tasks. So what are the options for Linux ?? my
next> move because I want to run a computer not "media centre", and
I am aware> that some new apps and hw is not going to work on
old systems....the rip-off> conspiracy.> > BTW I
still have machines, doing what they were designed for, that are
over> 15 years old now....working reliably running DOS
4.1....because the software> apps wont run on a more modern
machine..... ..and I dont get "blue screens"> on
them!> > Alan G3NYK>

Regarding SDR on older
computers: try simultaneously running a graphical user interface, and
the DSP code necessary to decode and display CW or SSB on a 386 or
486. Without a dedicated DSP chip, you are in for a long wait. Over
ten years ago, I wrote DOS-based code (in Turbo-C) that displayed an
audio spectrum analyzer in a DOS-based VGA graphics display. All the
DSP was done in either a homebrew Motorola 56000 board, or an EVM,
with DMA data transfers over the old PC bus (homebrew), or fast serial
port(EVM).

I don't want to do that again. But, if you are staying
DOS or Win-98, kiss the PC doing DSP goodbye. I still have three Moto
56000 EVM boards that I'd be glad to sell.

Regarding Linux:
There is some movement afoot there with SDR. There are a few programs
that will work. Again, you must do a hardware upgrade to get the
processing necessary to do DSP and on-screen graphics.

I also
have a couple 486 computers with Win98, and Win95, and DOS. Just in
case I ever want to run my 56000 audio spec analyzer.

But, I also
have a working IBM 5-slot computer, and a spare.

And, I have a
working IMSAI CP/M system with Heath H19 terminal, and 8-inch drives.
I boot CP/M and run Wordstar every once in a while. How about a nice
game of chess? Or the CP/M user-group Adventure?

I also have two
Altair 8800s, and an Altair turnkey (no front panel), plus a bunch of
S100 boards. No power to them in about three years.

I don't expect
these computers to run SDR software either.

And, I can still erase
and burn 1702A to 2764 EPROMS. Go figure.

Don't get me started with
software. From CP/M, to DOS 1.x to 4.x, to the original flight
simulator. I even had the paper tapes for Altair 4k and 8k Basic.
Anybody remember Lattice C, or Run-C? Or the CP/M Pascal?

But
native SDR on a 4MHz Z80? Probably as likely as on a 266MHz
486.

Terry

Ray

Hi Bill, There are several sites that talk to the ES7000 capability and LINUX. Here is one http://esj.com/enterprise/article.aspx?EditorialsID=1074 I was

Message 18 of 19
, Apr 2, 2008

0 Attachment

Hi Bill, There are several sites
that talk to the ES7000 capability and LINUX. Here is one http://esj.com/enterprise/article.aspx?EditorialsID=1074
I was very proud and thankful that I had a chance to work with this
system – I started on the project 1997 and we delivered 1st piece 1999.
It is an amazing mix of capabilities and includes LINUX as one of the primary
platforms. Interestingly it can run several different OSs concurrently with
dynamic partitioning on an INTEL platform and exceeds mainframe
performance.

It was my last job with UNISYS and I
elected to leave the company rather than move to
California and spend most of my time with
off-shore manufacturing. I really would have liked to stay with the
project but family comes first.

I knew Burroughs offered Unix, but didn't
know they also had a Linux offering. My Unix training was done at
Penn State 's
Great Valley Campus at Valley Forge ,
PA. One of my instructors was a
Unisys, actually Sperry, old timer who supported Unix on their various systems.

I agree that the big guns need and offer LINUX,
Burroughs/UNISYS also offers it on the ES7000 and a few mainframes and it is a
superior OS in the big machine arena. I participated in qualification
testing of LINUX on the ES7000 and it was very easy to port onto a 32 way Intel
platform with a custom memory and I/O chip set. I didn’t mean to
give the impression that it was less of an OS, it is just that I don’t
think into will make it into the average household anytime soon.

As an old Burroughs guy, you probably don't want to hear
this but Linux has some support from a big gun. IBM offers Linux on their
mainframe systems. Even though I too am an old Burroughs guy, I think that is
pretty big gun support.

Thanks for putting this in the proper perspective - I agree
on everything you have said except for one thing. I have been watching
LINUX try to grow to a full blown OS for many years and while it is superior
for specific characteristics I don't think I will hold my breath until it
matures. I have my doubts that it ever will - it seems to lack the
management drive that it takes to make a single entity that does it all.
Right or Wrong if it can't at least do what MS OSs (including device
support) do then it will never be a big box competitor.

I hope I am wrong about LINUX because I truly believe it
could be king of the hill with the right direction, management and stability,
but that has yet to happen.

--- In softrock40@yahoogro ups.com,
"Alan Melia" <Alan.Melia@ ...>
wrote:
>
> Hi I am a little amused, that it seems to be the case that one
should have
> to spend $300 to run a $15 radio. I can appreciate that developers
have
> enough hastle because the latest OS is not downwards
compatible.. ...but many
> of us refuse to buy even more bug-ridden software, when the one we
have does
> the vast majority of our tasks. So what are the options for
Linux ?? my next
> move because I want to run a computer not "media centre", and I
am
aware
> that some new apps and hw is not going to work on old
systems....the rip-off
> conspiracy.
>
> BTW I still have machines, doing what they were designed for, that
are over
> 15 years old now....working reliably running DOS 4.1....because the
software
> apps wont run on a more modern machine..... ..and I dont get "blue
screens"
> on them!
>
> Alan G3NYK
>

Regarding SDR on older computers: try simultaneously running a
graphical user interface, and the DSP code necessary to decode and
display CW or SSB on a 386 or 486. Without a dedicated DSP chip, you
are in for a long wait. Over ten years ago, I wrote DOS-based code
(in Turbo-C) that displayed an audio spectrum analyzer in a DOS-based
VGA graphics display. All the DSP was done in either a homebrew
Motorola 56000 board, or an EVM, with DMA data transfers over the old
PC bus (homebrew), or fast serial port(EVM).

I don't want to do that again. But, if you are staying DOS or Win-
98, kiss the PC doing DSP goodbye. I still have three Moto 56000 EVM
boards that I'd be glad to sell.

Regarding Linux: There is some movement afoot there with SDR. There
are a few programs that will work. Again, you must do a hardware
upgrade to get the processing necessary to do DSP and on-screen
graphics.

I also have a couple 486 computers with Win98, and Win95, and DOS.
Just in case I ever want to run my 56000 audio spec analyzer.

But, I also have a working IBM 5-slot computer, and a spare.

And, I have a working IMSAI CP/M system with Heath H19 terminal, and
8-inch drives. I boot CP/M and run Wordstar every once in a while.
How about a nice game of chess? Or the CP/M user-group Adventure?

I also have two Altair 8800s, and an Altair turnkey (no front panel),
plus a bunch of S100 boards. No power to them in about three years.

I don't expect these computers to run SDR software either.

And, I can still erase and burn 1702A to 2764 EPROMS. Go figure.

Don't get me started with software. From CP/M, to DOS 1.x to 4.x, to
the original flight simulator. I even had the paper tapes for Altair
4k and 8k Basic. Anybody remember Lattice C, or Run-C? Or the CP/M
Pascal?

But native SDR on a 4MHz Z80? Probably as likely as on a 266MHz 486.

Terry

Clive Wallis

Bob K5MJY wrote - ... My first success was with Alberto s WinRad program. I used it initially because my XP machine had an unsuitable sound card. It s a nice

Message 19 of 19
, Apr 5, 2008

0 Attachment

Bob K5MJY wrote -

>Acouple years ago I took an interest in SD Radio but all the FREEBIE
>software I could find at the time would not run on W98. I refuse to
>update Windows again.

My first success was with Alberto's WinRad program. I used it initially
because my XP machine had an unsuitable sound card. It's a nice
program and worked well on Win98. It's available from Alberto's web
site www.weaksignals.com

--
73

Clive G3CWV

Hitchin, North Hertfordshire, UK.

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.